less free wrote:The most powerful nation on earth and it's so called leader's words carry no weight with our enemies. Worse, our allies doubt that we have their backs. Reduce our military to nothing?

Everything about this administration cripples our country. Domestic and foreign the policy is make the US weak. It's going to take a very long time to recover from this guy. Democrats let the liberals in, Democrats need to go.

Pres. Obama's approach seems to be working well for the stock market.

You mean the speech where he proposed a $4T budget which has no chance of passing the House of the Senate?

Try to stay on topic.

NEW YORK—Easing tensions in Ukraine fueled a global stock rally Tuesday, propelling the S&P 500 to a record closing high, as investors sold safe-haven assets such as Treasurys and gold.

What the government does here is load up multiple comments so that those who have a relativly short terse comment are sent way down the block. Denver Post needs to sort these people out.....starting with "Carpe Diem" !!!!!!!!!!

Denver Post needs to have a serious look at these folks blowing away our discussion with FOG!! These people get in there and blow away those of us trying to advance a serious argument. Example "Carpe Diem" is one clown but there are many others. What they do is elongate the page, spew out the discussion line to blow away views they do not like!! A well stated post is moved way down the line by these Clowns who do not like it!! This needs to be shut down!! People like Carpe Diem do not get to pour in so much blabber that they dominate and control the discussion!! I do not get to run so much copy that whole pages are run out of my adversary! Give your view: fine. But you do not get to blow away the whole page!! The whole discussion!!

worththefight wrote:Make Putin pay? Obama can't even be troubled to attend the meetings to discuss the issue.

What "meetings" are these you speak of?

Please be specific (and truthful).

March 1, 2014WASHINGTON — President Obama had no public events on his schedule today, yet skipped a meeting of his national security team at the White House today as they huddled over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Seen leaving the meeting at the White House were Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and CIA Director John Brennan.

Vice President Joe Biden reportedly joined the meeting via videoconference, while Obama was briefed later by National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

And this means President Obama was goofing off? Perhaps this was the day he spent 90 minutes on the phone with the reptilian Putin.

Your point is still unclear. Other than that you right-wingers loathe President Obama with an incandescent passion.

ATLborn79 wrote:-FDR provoked Japan into attacking (and allowed it to happen) cause he knew it was the only was to get out of the Keynesian Great Depression.-Hitler was--and never would have been--a threat to the U.S. He wanted Russia.

The Japanese missed a carrier fleet that was out to sea. Had they been in port, we would have lost the war against Japan. I guess FDR didn't plan on that or maybe he did. Such a good thing FDR did to bring us out of the depression.......Had FDR really done that, he should have been hung........I think your twisted logic is making you think you are smart. I think your thinking is dangerous to me and my family if you should ever gain power.

ricky389 wrote:Denver Post needs to have a serious look at these folks blowing away our discussion with FOG!! These people get in there and blow away those of us trying to advance a serious argument. Example "Carpe Diem" is one clown but there are many others. What they do is elongate the page, spew out the discussion line to blow away views they do not like!! A well stated post is moved way down the line by these Clowns who do not like it!! This needs to be shut down!! People like Carpe Diem do not get to pour in so much blabber that they dominate and control the discussion!! I do not get to run so much copy that whole pages are run out of my adversary! Give your view: fine. But you do not get to blow away the whole page!! The whole discussion!!

Homey,There's a button you can push that will completely eliminate all comments made by anyone here that you don't want to read. Takes about two seconds.Clears the FOG out pronto.It's right under the NAME of the person who wrote the post you don't like. Now, if you would do me the honor, I can get back to making a mockery of "serious arguments."

“It is not inequality which is the real misfortune, it is dependence.” ― Voltaire

Putin has a lot more justification for protecting Russian interests in Ukraine than we had in invading Iraq. A lot more. A significant chunk of the Russian naval fleet is based in Crimea, making it a national security concern, and his intervention was requested by the legally elected President of Ukraine. A much stronger case than the Iraq WMD threat fabricated by the Bush administration to justify that debacle. Which has unfortunately cost us much of the moral leadership and influence we once had in the world, probably for generations.

less free wrote:The most powerful nation on earth and it's so called leader's words carry no weight with our enemies. Worse, our allies doubt that we have their backs. Reduce our military to nothing?

Everything about this administration cripples our country. Domestic and foreign the policy is make the US weak. It's going to take a very long time to recover from this guy. Democrats let the liberals in, Democrats need to go.

Pres. Obama's approach seems to be working well for the stock market.

You mean the speech where he proposed a $4T budget which has no chance of passing the House of the Senate?

Try to stay on topic.

NEW YORK—Easing tensions in Ukraine fueled a global stock rally Tuesday, propelling the S&P 500 to a record closing high, as investors sold safe-haven assets such as Treasurys and gold.

locke-1 wrote:Putin has a lot more justification for protecting Russian interests in Ukraine than we had in invading Iraq. A lot more. A significant chunk of the Russian naval fleet is based in Crimea, making it a national security concern, and his intervention was requested by the legally elected President of Ukraine. A much stronger case than the Iraq WMD threat fabricated by the Bush administration to justify that debacle. Which has unfortunately cost us much of the moral leadership and influence we once had in the world, probably for generations.

We were attacked on 9/11 2011. What did our president do? That is what the world sees today.

Greg Woods wrote:I see. They didn't invade the Ukraine. OK Neville…. and the Germans didn't invade the Sudetenland. If Russia attacked Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa…They wouldn't really be attacking America…. Because those aren't really "States" in America. This your rationalization? Excuse me, but that sounds like Chris Matthews doing mental and linguistic gymnastics in order to excuse the notion that Palin knew better than Kerry and Obama? "He didn't invade Ukraine - Palin is still a moron, wah wah wah."

They invaded the Ukraine. Putin even acknowledges this. He said he did so because there has been an illegal coup in Ukraine. Now perhaps the translators did a poor job, but that is what he said. Putin invaded a sovereign country WITHOUT invitation from that country. He is using force to occupy that country. His soldiers are not wearing insignia to identity their country of origin. He invaded a sovereign country which did no provoke him or threaten them. None of these actions are lawful under any treaty or accord anywhere.

Putin isn't quaking in his boots thinking about all the terrible economic sanctions they West will put on him. He isn't concerned because he supplies Europe with ~ 20+% of their natural gas and thanks to Obama lifting sanctions against Iran, Putin has inked a deal with Iran to export 500,000 brls of their oil a day. Russia has a nice supply of new revenue (in gold no less) by selling that oil to India and Turkey. Nice job Bammie!!!! Now you might get Turkey to cancel their contract, but India will probably take what the Turks don't want. If they don't, you know China will.

Putin is laughing his keister off at the West trying to figure out how get him to stop. He'll manipulate them into thinking they are controlling events and getting Putin to back down a little, then after the West naively pumps $10 Billion into Ukraine, he'll take the money and the country. All of it, including Crimea.

Still, Russia hasn't done anything in Ukraine itself.

And, their actions in the Crimean Autonomous Republic still aren't an invasion. Putin is clearly playing that for all it's worth, and playing it up, though, quite possibly because he is actually constrained in doing anything more. It's not at all comparable to the Sudatenland, at least so far - read up on your history. If Russian troops, who so far haven't fired a shot or taken control of anything, go back to their bases, this incident will just go down in the history books as a show of force and not an invasion.

If Putin were really in as strong a position as you paint him, he would have sent Russian troops into Ukraine at the "invitation" of Yanukovich (or a hastily arranged, more acceptable but still pro-Moscow successor), rather than letting a friendly regime be replaced by a hostile one. You failed to take that into consideration, that if Russia really wanted to invade Ukraine and didn't feel limited in exercising their power, they really would have troops in Ukraine itself by now, and wouldn't have let the government there fall in the face of protests (a real nightmare for Putin, because it provides a precedent for the opposition that wants to topple him). If you like imagining the soap opera going on behind the scenes, you should start with when Yanukovich was still facing protesters in the Ukraine itself, he asked Putin for help and was turned down because Russia didn't think they could risk doing anything (and which has actually been reported in the UK's Financial Times).

Unless you can explain why Putin let a dangerous (for him) precedent be set in protesters' ousting of a friendly Ukrainian leader and regime, and why Russia doesn't already have troops in the Ukraine itself, it's hard to paint Putin as a strongman unconstrained by the West. What he's done so far, is actually the weakest and most limited thing he could have done, short of nothing.

Well, it is hard to argue with facts, so I won't. He hasn't invaded Ukraine: OK. He says he has, the US and then rest of the world says he has, but truth is independent of the believer. He is now claiming the troops in Crimea are self defense forces, not Russians and not trained by Russia.

So it is just an incursion to protect the Sudetenland. He is laughing at the ineptitude of Obama and the West. Why he didn't do it during the protest is clear. He wasn't ready, the Olympics were in progress and he didn't think the protesters would be successful. He'll never leave Crimea and he'll invade Ukraine if he is not successful getting his puppet back in place.

You seem to think the only reason he hasn't invaded is because he fears the West. He doesn't fear them what so ever. After Ukraine gets a few billion dollars, he'll orchestrate some Ukrainian solders killing ethnic Russians or Russian soldiers. Then he'll have everything he needs. It took 50 years to win the cold war and Obama is determine to reverse all that as soon as he can.

No, Putin hasn't claimed an invasion, as you confusingly point out when you throw that out and then point out that he has claimed to be protecting Russians in Crimea (after initial denials of a Russian role). Despite political rhetoric being thrown around, the definition of an invasion involves an attempt to conquer and the crossing of borders, neither of which are actually evident so far in the Crimean Autonomous Republic and neither of which have happened in the Ukraine itself by any stretch. As I pointed out earlier, if the Russian forces go back to their barracks, this will go down in history as just a show of force - perhaps a bit like what US forces did in Lebanon in 1958, or in Haiti in 2010, neither of which is on the books as an invasion.

You also gloss over the fact that if Putin was really unconstrained, he had plenty of time between the Olympics and the flight of Yanukovich from the Ukraine, to have orchestrated an actual invasion of Ukraine under the pretext of coming to the aid of a friendly government, rather than allowing a dangerously (for Putin) precedent-setting ousting of an autocratic President by popular protests - and that reputable European media sources report that Yanukovich indeed asked for help, and Putin apparently found himself to unable to really take forceful action.

Even Fox News disagrees with your scenario, and gives the President credit for having taken effective steps in the situation:

Putin blinks on Ukraine -- at least for now

In ordering Russian troops deployed near the Ukrainian border back to their bases and stating that using military force in Ukraine would be “absolutely the last resort,” Russia’s president has signaled a temporary retreat to consolidate his territorial gains in the vital Crimea and impede American efforts to impose stiff diplomatic and economic sanctions against his own economically fragile country.....Putin, however, was apparently unwilling at this stage to test President Obama’s determination to impose painful economic and diplomatic sanctions against Russia that would further diplomatically isolate Moscow and destabilize the ruble. ....But Mr. Obama, who has been severely criticized not only by Republicans for failing to enforce other “red lines” he has drawn, seemed intent on matching action with rhetoric in this crisis. And for the moment at least, Putin seems unwilling to test Obama’s ability or determination to make good on his warnings.

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.....We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” - Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 1, 1862

locke-1 wrote:Putin has a lot more justification for protecting Russian interests in Ukraine than we had in invading Iraq. A lot more. A significant chunk of the Russian naval fleet is based in Crimea, making it a national security concern, and his intervention was requested by the legally elected President of Ukraine. A much stronger case than the Iraq WMD threat fabricated by the Bush administration to justify that debacle. Which has unfortunately cost us much of the moral leadership and influence we once had in the world, probably for generations.

Don't forget about the fabricated stories about Gaddafi committing genocide in order to justify the illegal bombing of Libya, a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the U.S.

Or the fabricated lies about Assad and chemical weapons, when it was actually the CIA-trained and funded "rebels" who were using it. Luckily enough Democrats saw through the Kerry/Obama lies about that one.

I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

locke-1 wrote:Putin has a lot more justification for protecting Russian interests in Ukraine than we had in invading Iraq. A lot more. A significant chunk of the Russian naval fleet is based in Crimea, making it a national security concern, and his intervention was requested by the legally elected President of Ukraine. A much stronger case than the Iraq WMD threat fabricated by the Bush administration to justify that debacle. Which has unfortunately cost us much of the moral leadership and influence we once had in the world, probably for generations.

We were attacked on 9/11 2011. What did our president do? That is what the world sees today.

Oh good lord...please tell me you're not one of those who actually believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11...

I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

ricky389 wrote:Denver Post needs to have a serious look at these folks blowing away our discussion with FOG!! These people get in there and blow away those of us trying to advance a serious argument. Example "Carpe Diem" is one clown but there are many others. What they do is elongate the page, spew out the discussion line to blow away views they do not like!! A well stated post is moved way down the line by these Clowns who do not like it!! This needs to be shut down!! People like Carpe Diem do not get to pour in so much blabber that they dominate and control the discussion!! I do not get to run so much copy that whole pages are run out of my adversary! Give your view: fine. But you do not get to blow away the whole page!! The whole discussion!!

Silence the opposition!!!!!!! No free speech for you!

So long as the Liberals around here dominate the board with their faux news delusion syndrome, rabid defense of anything Obama, and their attack attack attack of any Conservative, there will never be much rational discussion here. Its all there fault. If they'd just stop blabbering!

Pilgrim1620 wrote:No, Putin hasn't claimed an invasion, as you confusingly point out when you throw that out and then point out that he has claimed to be protecting Russians in Crimea (after initial denials of a Russian role). Despite political rhetoric being thrown around, the definition of an invasion involves an attempt to conquer and the crossing of borders, neither of which are actually evident so far in the Crimean Autonomous Republic and neither of which have happened in the Ukraine itself by any stretch. As I pointed out earlier, if the Russian forces go back to their barracks, this will go down in history as just a show of force - perhaps a bit like what US forces did in Lebanon in 1958, or in Haiti in 2010, neither of which is on the books as an invasion.

You also gloss over the fact that if Putin was really unconstrained, he had plenty of time between the Olympics and the flight of Yanukovich from the Ukraine, to have orchestrated an actual invasion of Ukraine under the pretext of coming to the aid of a friendly government, rather than allowing a dangerously (for Putin) precedent-setting ousting of an autocratic President by popular protests - and that reputable European media sources report that Yanukovich indeed asked for help, and Putin apparently found himself to unable to really take forceful action.

Even Fox News disagrees with your scenario, and gives the President credit for having taken effective steps in the situation:

Putin blinks on Ukraine -- at least for now

In ordering Russian troops deployed near the Ukrainian border back to their bases and stating that using military force in Ukraine would be “absolutely the last resort,” Russia’s president has signaled a temporary retreat to consolidate his territorial gains in the vital Crimea and impede American efforts to impose stiff diplomatic and economic sanctions against his own economically fragile country.....Putin, however, was apparently unwilling at this stage to test President Obama’s determination to impose painful economic and diplomatic sanctions against Russia that would further diplomatically isolate Moscow and destabilize the ruble. ....But Mr. Obama, who has been severely criticized not only by Republicans for failing to enforce other “red lines” he has drawn, seemed intent on matching action with rhetoric in this crisis. And for the moment at least, Putin seems unwilling to test Obama’s ability or determination to make good on his warnings.

ricky389 wrote:Denver Post needs to have a serious look at these folks blowing away our discussion with FOG!! These people get in there and blow away those of us trying to advance a serious argument. Example "Carpe Diem" is one clown but there are many others. What they do is elongate the page, spew out the discussion line to blow away views they do not like!! A well stated post is moved way down the line by these Clowns who do not like it!! This needs to be shut down!! People like Carpe Diem do not get to pour in so much blabber that they dominate and control the discussion!! I do not get to run so much copy that whole pages are run out of my adversary! Give your view: fine. But you do not get to blow away the whole page!! The whole discussion!!

Silence the opposition!!!!!!! No free speech for you!

So long as the Liberals around here dominate the board with their faux news delusion syndrome, rabid defense of anything Obama, and their attack attack attack of any Conservative, there will never be much rational discussion here. Its all there fault. If they'd just stop blabbering!

I never knew a private company like the Denver Post regulating its property was somehow a violation of civil liberties.

Besides that, judging by your posts, you are the biggest liberal of them all. Everything you stand for is interventionist, Statist, and anti-liberty. You obviously worship the State and everything it entails.

You wouldn't know what a conservative was if he came up and punched you in the nose.

I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

less free wrote:The most powerful nation on earth and it's so called leader's words carry no weight with our enemies. Worse, our allies doubt that we have their backs. Reduce our military to nothing?

Everything about this administration cripples our country. Domestic and foreign the policy is make the US weak. It's going to take a very long time to recover from this guy. Democrats let the liberals in, Democrats need to go.

Pres. Obama's approach seems to be working well for the stock market.

You mean the speech where he proposed a $4T budget which has no chance of passing the House of the Senate?

Try to stay on topic.

NEW YORK—Easing tensions in Ukraine fueled a global stock rally Tuesday, propelling the S&P 500 to a record closing high, as investors sold safe-haven assets such as Treasurys and gold.

Chimborazo wrote:The way I see it we should lean on the European Union to figure out a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian conflict and allowing them to retain political stability. The EU should be heading this up and once they determine how to proceed they can then request assistance from other countries such as us, Japan, etc.

Let us pretend that Texas seceded from the United States twenty years ago and formed their own country. Let's say that the president of Texas was a puppet of the United States and the fine people of Texas kicked him out of power. Our military then moved in to take control of North Texas in order to "stabilize" the region (real motives were being debated by the international community and are probably more nefarious). The Russians are determined to assist the people of South Texas and many Russian politicians are coming out and saying that a military solution is best. What would we think of the Russians intruding. On the other hand, lets say Mexico had become an economic juggernaut and formed a Union with Texas and some smaller countries to the South. Their trading partner to the North was being threatened. It is in their interest to help Texas come to a diplomatic solution with its confrontation with the United States.

I am not sure we need to get involved quite yet and maybe not at all. Saber rattling by John McCain isn't helping either. It seems like those on the right are quick to criticize the President and short on coming together with any realistic solution. They are intellectually lazy sometimes and it is easier for them to disagree with EVERYTHING than provide solutions.

Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!!!

Nicely done- especially that last part. Unfortunately, you will get many thumbs down- mostly from people like the GOPers you describe- quick to disagree and criticize but VERY slow in coming up with solutions.

Ding, ding, ding….. we have a winner. Of the appeasing hypocrite award.

Ding, ding, ding we have the worst worst worst worst, unbelievably uninformed analogy in the history of world.

The SOLUTION depends on what you want.

Liberals want Obama to never ever be criticized, so the solution for them is to ignore reality.

Incidenlty I love all these Liberals doing gymnastics to try and pretend Putin is justified. I guess that is to be expected when the plastic faced, coward sec. of state Kerry did it 10+ times this past Sunday.

Putin invaded a sovereign country. IT ISN'T TEXAS! Ukraine succeeded after living under the brutal and repressive USSR for 60+ years which saw the Russians KILL MILLIONS of Ukrainians.

Remind me about the time the USA invaded Texas, forced it to join the USA, then killed MILLIONS of them? I don't recall that. Is that part of the new Common Core curriculum"?

The solution for a Conservative is to have a foreign policy which PREVENTS actions like Putin invading a sovereign country. But now that Obama ushered him into the Ukraine, you insist he not be criticized unless someone comes up with a "solution" you like. Where was that attitude when Bush invaded Iraq you hypocrites!

The Solution for NATO is different again. Four countries called for a minister meeting under Article 4. They WILL come up with a MILITARY plan.

The solution in the REAL world (a place Liberals like to avoid when defending Bammie) is there is NO "diplomatic" solution thanks to six years of "we surrender" foreign policy by Obama. That is the problem with Obama feckless foreign policy, you can't "un-surrender". Putin will get his way in the Ukraine unless he is removed by force.

It is a very long list of idiotic, dis-jointed, naive and outright stupid and cowardly foreign policy decisions that will take America and the world a decade to overcome. Surrendering to Russia over Missile DefenceAppeasing the Mullahs of IranEnding the War on TerrorAnnouncing a Surge while Declaring an ExitApologising to France for America’s “Arrogance”Siding with Marxists in HondurasEmbracing Genocidal Killers in SudanFailed to get a SOFA with Iraq. Abandoned Israel, then embraced them before his re-election, then abandoned them again. Asked Putin to bail him out after his Red-line bluff failed in Syria. Ceding Syria permanently to Russia and Iran.Removed sanctions from Iran getting nothing in return and enriching Russia in the process. Ushered the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt and abandoned the people of Egypt.

It is time for Obama to spend some time thinking about what America stands for, what its goals are and then explain it in a clear and credible way. Even if we disagree with his conclusions, at least there will be a North Star guiding his policies. Frida Ghitis CNN.

1) What exactly did Obama surrender to Russia? Are we down to 49 states?2) How exactly did we appease the Mullahs of Iran? Assuming you're correct, what would your solution have been?3) Ending the War on Terror- Good. Afghanistan should have been done long ago, and Iraq shouldn't have happened (something I wrongly supported on the beginning).4) The apologizing was debunked. When one apologizes, usually the words "sorry" or "I apologize" are used. Even if he did, so what? How does your marriage work when you never apologize?5) What was going on in....never mind.

For all your verbage, all you have said is that you have no solutions- and neither do the GOPers.

RSpreier wrote:What a perfect comparison, Barak Obama and Neville Chamberlain. Two completely inept leaders. Do you think Putin would have dared to do this if Ronald Reagan were in office? We've got a weaker version of Jimmy Carter in office. No one takes the US seriously, not the Europeans, not the middle eastern countries, and especially not Putin.

People seem to forget, or not to know, that Reagan stood by while the Russians acted far more aggressively and violently than they have so far, in crushing the original Solidarity uprising in Poland.

And, as I've pointed out earlier, Eisenhower (R, WWII-era supreme commander) apparently couldn't find any options to exercise when the Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956 and killed up to 30,000 people, while Bush (Jr, R) didn't do anything more than Obama has when the Russians acted much more egregiously in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossettia.

There are no good options, and faced with that, prudent leaders have then not tried to exercise any options, though there are more subtle behind-the-scenes things they can do that may be productive in the long run - though they may not gratify the crowd who like showy (though often ultimately useless) gestures like "mission accomplished" banners.

Bush did nothing when Russia invaded Georgia of Eastern Europe.

You mean in September of 2008….. 70 or so days before Obama's election?

Are history books not available to Liberals or do they just ignore them?

So you're saying we had no president from Sept 2008 until January 2009?

I'm saying Libbies desperately trying to defend Obama's six years of failed foreign policies which gave an open invitation for Russia to invade Ukraine by saying "Bush didn't do anything when Russia invaded Georgia" is not only childishly foolish, but is also illustrates the naivety of Liberals when it comes foreign relations.

When Bammie's entire 2008 campaign rhetoric was about US arrogance, and how he was going to be super nice to everyone, and about how he was going to adopt a surrender first foreign policy, why in the world would Russians think the US was going to do anything to stop them when Bush's term was up in 50 days. Some people call it a power vacuum. They use that word sometime in history books.

I don't think liberals are saying Bush's inability to act on Georgia's behalf was an invitation to Putin to send troops into Ukraine. I think it is simply pointing out the GOP rage that wasn't there when Bush did nothing about Georgia, or when Reagan did nothing about Poland, or when Eisenhower did nothing about Hungary, but seems to be there now.

Were you this bent out of shape over Georgia in 2008? I bet not, but I'm sure that was different.

Heck, some are already saying Putin is Hitler. There are several levels of scum and villainy. Hitler and Stalin are at the top. Putin is a long ways from being there. As a matter of fact, he's way behind the lowest member of Al-Qaeda in my book.